- Framework of problems / Objective
- Failure to define clinically meaningful outcomes
- Methodological issues in meta-analyses of observational studies: the need for attention to the details
| Ref ID | 814 |
| First Author | E.M.H. Padrao |
| Journal | BRITISH JOURNAL OF ANAESTHESIA |
| Year Of Publishing | 2022 |
| URL | https://www.bjanaesthesia.org/article/S0007-0912(22)00064-2/fulltext |
| Keywords |
Observational studies Statistical Error COVID Non-Cochrane reviews Outcomes |
| Problem(s) |
Errors in effect estimate calculations or data synthesis Failure to define clinically meaningful outcomes Inclusion of observational / non-randomised studies |
| Number of systematic reviews included | 1 |
| Summary of Findings | The authors of the letter highlight concerns with the conduct of one systematic review and meta-analysis of prone positioning in non-intubated spontaneously breathing patients in patients with COVID-19 published in 2022. These include the questionable choice of outcome and outcome measurement used in the systematic review and the use of unadjusted results from observational studies in the pooled analysis. The letter authors perform an adjusted analysis of the systematic review using only studies which adjusted for confounding which the letter authors argue leads to a more precise estimate of efficacy than the original review. |
| Did the article find that the problem(s) led to qualitative changes in interpretation of the results? | No |
| Are the methods of the article described in enough detail to replicate the study? | No |